Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cucm-emulator-mcp

cucm-emulator-mcp

by calltelemetry
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

emu_get_scenario_run

Retrieve a specific scenario run to inspect call simulation results and routing policy decisions in the CUCM emulator.

Instructions

Get a v2 scenario run

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "emu_get_scenario_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It indicates a read operation with the verb 'Get', but does not state whether it is read-only, what it returns, or what an 'v2 scenario run' means in this system. This is minimal and leaves major behavioral questions unanswered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with no filler or unnecessary structure. However, the brevity crosses into under-specification where 'v2' is ambiguous and no additional details are added to improve usefulness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has a very small schema but also has no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate with operational context. It does not, leaving an agent without a clear picture of the expected input and output. The definition is too thin to support reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the only parameter 'id' has no semantic description in the schema. The description also fails to clarify what 'id' refers to, such as the scenario run ID or another identifier, making the parameter meaning effectively opaque.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('scenario run'), so the majority of the purpose is apparent. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like emu_get_scenario_run_events or emu_replay_scenario_run, but the resource name is still unambiguous enough for a basic selection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of the related scenario run tools, nor any mention of preconditions or typical workflow. The agent must infer context purely from the tool name, which is insufficient for confident tool choice.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools